Literature DB >> 20512439

Minimizing electromagnetic interference from surgical instruments on electromagnetic surgical navigation.

Faustin Stevens1, Michael A Conditt, Nikhil Kulkarni, Sabir K Ismaily, Philip C Noble, David R Lionberger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electromagnetic computer-assisted surgery (EM-CAS) can be affected by various metallic or ferromagnetic factors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined to what extent metals interfere with accuracy and identified measures to prevent interference from occurring.
METHODS: Using an EM-CAS system, we made six standard measurements of tibiofemoral position and alignment on a surrogate knee. A stainless steel mallet was positioned 10 cm from the stylus, and then 10 cm from the localizer to create errors attributable to electromagnetic interference. The experiment was repeated with bars of different metals placed 10 cm from the stylus.
RESULTS: The maximum errors recorded with a mallet were: varus/valgus alignment, -2.7 degrees and 2.4 degrees; flexion/extension, -5.8 degrees and 3.0 degrees; lateral resection level, -3.1 and 7.5 mm; and medial resection level, -4.0 and 2.3 mm, respectively. The smallest errors were recorded with cylinders of titanium, cobalt-chrome alloy, and stainless steels. When moved more than 10 cm away from the stylus, errors became negligible.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of EM navigation systems is affected substantially by the size, type, proximity, and shape of metal objects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Stainless steel objects, such as cutting blocks and trial prostheses, should be kept more than 10 cm from EM-CAS instruments to minimize error.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20512439      PMCID: PMC2895861          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1366-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  14 in total

1.  Early failures in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  T K Fehring; S Odum; W L Griffin; J B Mason; M Nadaud
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Quantitative analysis of factors affecting intraoperative precision and stability of optoelectronic and electromagnetic tracking systems.

Authors:  A Wagner; K Schicho; W Birkfellner; M Figl; R Seemann; F König; Franz Kainberger; R Ewers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Interference during the use of an electromagnetic tracking system under OR conditions.

Authors:  François Poulin; L-P Amiot
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Effect of metal and sampling rate on accuracy of Flock of Birds electromagnetic tracking system.

Authors:  Suzanne LaScalza; Jane Arico; Richard Hughes
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Stability of miniature electromagnetic tracking systems.

Authors:  Kurt Schicho; Michael Figl; Markus Donat; Wolfgang Birkfellner; Rudolf Seemann; Arne Wagner; Helmar Bergmann; Rolf Ewers
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-04-20       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Coronal alignment after total knee replacement.

Authors:  R S Jeffery; R W Morris; R A Denham
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1991-09

7.  [Intraoperative precision of mechanical, electromagnetic, infrared and laser-guided navigation systems in computer-assisted surgery].

Authors:  R Marmulla; M Hilbert; H Niederdellmann
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  1998-05

8.  Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?

Authors:  Peter F Sharkey; William J Hozack; Richard H Rothman; Shani Shastri; Sidney M Jacoby
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Why are total knee replacements revised?: analysis of early revision in a community knee implant registry.

Authors:  Terence J Gioe; Kathleen K Killeen; Katherine Grimm; Susan Mehle; Karen Scheltema
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: just how important is it?

Authors:  David M Fang; Merrill A Ritter; Kenneth E Davis
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2009-06-24       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  5 in total

1.  Electromagnetically tracked personalized templates for surgical navigation.

Authors:  Andrew W L Dickinson; Michelle L Zec; David R Pichora; Brian J Rasquinha; Randy E Ellis
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Electromagnetic tracking in surgical and interventional environments: usability study.

Authors:  Elodie Lugez; Hossein Sadjadi; David R Pichora; Randy E Ellis; Selim G Akl; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 3.  Performance and suitability assessment of a real-time 3D electromagnetic needle tracking system for interstitial brachytherapy.

Authors:  Samir Boutaleb; Emmanuel Racine; Olivier Fillion; Antonio Bonillas; Gilion Hautvast; Dirk Binnekamp; Luc Beaulieu
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2015-09-14

4.  Accuracy of a Wrist-Worn Heart Rate Sensing Device during Elective Pediatric Surgical Procedures.

Authors:  Gloria Pelizzo; Anna Guddo; Aurora Puglisi; Annalisa De Silvestri; Calogero Comparato; Mario Valenza; Emanuele Bordonaro; Valeria Calcaterra
Journal:  Children (Basel)       Date:  2018-03-08

5.  Novel electromagnetic-based navigation for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis reduces radiation exposure and enhances surgical efficiency compared to fluoroscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Junlong Wu; Shengxiang Ao; Huan Liu; Wenkai Wang; Wenjie Zheng; Changqing Li; Chao Zhang; Yue Zhou
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-10
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.